Today’s guiding theory – backed by monetarist junk economics – is that debts of any size can be paid, simply by reducing labor’s wages and living standards, plus by selling off a nation’s public domain – its land, oil and gas reserves, minerals and water distribution, roads and transport systems, power plants and sewage systems, and public infrastructure of all forms.
Imposed by the monopoly of inter-governmental financial institutions – the IMF, ECB, U.S. Treasury, and so forth – creditor financial leverage has become the 21st century’s new mode of warfare. It is as devastating as military war in its effect on population: rising suicide rates, shorter lifespans, and emigration of the age-cohort that always have been the major casualties of war, young adults. Instead of being drafted into the army to fight foreign foes, they are driven from their homes to find work abroad. What used to be a rural exodus from the land to the cities from the 17th century onward is now a “debtor exodus” from countries whose governments owe unpayably high sums to creditor governments and to the banks and bondholders on whose behalf they impose their policy.
While pushing the world economy into a state of war internationally, high finance also is waging a class war against labor – and ultimately against governments and thus against democracy.…Counterpunch
The Financial Attack on Greece: Where Do We Go From Here?
Michael Hudson
17 comments:
Seems to miss the main point.
The aim is to get rid of nations full stop. The right have realised that if they let the left fulfil their dream of a one world utopia with no governments of any power and no borders then then means there is nobody to stop them pillaging everything and forcing workers to wander the globe in search of their next meal.
A very clever strategy.
c/mon Neil there is no evidence of that...
They just think "economies of scale" for EZ and helps the "common market" become more competitive globally... also may prevent wars, increase solidarity, etc..
They just thought it would generally put Europe as a whole in a better position to compete for the BIG business globally.. Airbus, ESA, Brent Oil, Banking, Insurance, etc... BIG stuff...
And then Asia has really emerged since all of this was put together back in the 90's ... that has really killed things here too over the same time but thankfully we don't have hard deficit goals here so the deficit can go where it goes based on savings desires, etc.. it has been above 3% here for a while all that really happens here is our libertarians get heart burn and high blood pressure hopefully it shortens their lives...
The Greeks are getting screwed as a result of all this as its a small economy the firms there don't have much interest in the BIG global business, cant scale up like firms in the others so locals cant compete and they end up having to net import which has them bounce up against that 3% deficit limit immediately then the "enforcement agents" come knocking .... they are going to have to stand up for themselves... rsp
"c/mon Neil there is no evidence of that..."
There's plenty of evidence for it.
There is absolutely no need at all for a supranational grouping based upon locality in a modern world. The only purpose of it is to move democracy more to a central location where it has less or little effect. So that the actual levers of power are operated autocratically by an elite. The left and right elites fight for the levers, but they both want the autocratic power free from interference by the 'little people'
The rest of the world is looking at smaller tribes running autonomously. More and more independence movements based upon people with varying views wanting their own little area.
Smaller groupings is, of course, the natural outcome of promoting extreme individualism. You can only have supranational groupings if you push supranational conformity.
Nobody sings to the EU flag in Europe.
"a modern world"
I would agree with that but things have become "modern" pretty fast over the last 15 years or so... events seemed to have quickly overtaken the original policy goals...
I'm just saying that the original goals were probably noble (not such a sinister thing as 'getting rid of nations" or whatever....) but times have quickly changed mostly due to technology and emergence of Asia since then...
iow the policy was originally to make "Europe" more productive but what has happened is that "Europe" has become more "productive" by outsourcing to the Asian EUR zombies that have emerged since the original policy was put in place.... they did not assume that once the currency was created, they would be swamped with demand for the currency by the eastern mongol hoards and their own European people would end up in competition with 1 Billion EUR zombies in Asia for the same EUR currency..
iow now, what might be a good idea is for German industrial firms to take some of their EUR surplus and construct a factory in Greece where there is plenty of labor available (Dan's basic idea...) , but even Greece cant compete with Asians who will work for the EUR equivalent of 3 rations of dog brain soup per day so German firms put things in place in Asia and Greece would stay a big net importer...
Events have overtaken the capabilities of the policymakers... the original policy was probably noble but the assumptions about the global business environment that the policy was based on did not stay static and now the incompetent policymakers and their unqualified advisors are digging in instead of modifying the policy... rsp,
"not such a sinister thing as 'getting rid of nations" or whatever"
The goal of the EU is 'ever closer union'. That is getting rid of the nation states. The whole concept of the EU was that the nation states were the problem and that we all need to become 'European'.
Hence why you have the European Nationalism of Varoufakis, et al. from their generation - all based upon the 'one world idealism' that was very popular at the time.
I hear it all the time. Don't mention the problems with unlimited immigration because "it isn't an issue". Don't talk about national governments enforcing anything because that is 'nationalism'.
Neil: "The right have realised that if they let the left fulfil their dream of a one world utopia with no governments of any power..."
I don't think this is quite right. The right doesn't want to get rid of government. They are fully aware that government is absolutely essential. Their position is having a government that does what it wants (subsidies, bail outs, anti-market crony corporatist "free trade" agreements, a violent state that will defend a neo-feudal economy, etc) and nothing for people. It's close to achieving its goals. Only the welfare state is left, and that's being taken apart pretty damn fast.
Neil: "Nobody sings to the EU flag in Europe."
Beethoven must be turning in his grave. That his sublime masterpiece is the EU anthem is the height of cultural vandalism and criminality. Anyway, I can't sing Schiller in German. Nothing makes my heart race quite like the ninth, certainly not God Save The Queen (to which I must add, she ain't no human being).
I'm just saying that the original goals were probably noble (not such a sinister thing as 'getting rid of nations" or whatever....) but times have quickly changed mostly due to technology and emergence of Asia since then...
Read the Post I recently put up on Carroll Quigley. The plan since the '30s has been to create international organizations run by international technocrats to end run sovereign governments. That plan is right on schedule.
I don't think this is quite right. The right doesn't want to get rid of government. They are fully aware that government is absolutely essential.
The goal is replacing the welfare state with the market state, Then they need to control markets through state institutions that give them market power to extract rents, and they need a hegemon to enforce an international order based on international institutions and treaties that break down national borders so as to preserve and extend neocolonialism.
The American Empire didn't just happen. It was created by people with an agenda. It's a hidden agenda masked by a public agenda that is really only a sophistic rationale for elite control.
The EZ was created to function as a partner of the hegemon and maybe to replace it eventually in order to end the vassalage of the European nations that pissed the French off in particular.
BTW, the French and Germans are keenly aware that a Franko-German-Russian alliance can rule the world, and so are the Russians.
Tom: "Then they need to control markets through state institutions that give them market power to extract rents, and they need a hegemon to enforce an international order based on international institutions and treaties that break down national borders so as to preserve and extend neocolonialism."
Nicely put.
Tom: "The American Empire didn't just happen. It was created by people with an agenda. It's a hidden agenda masked by a public agenda that is really only a sophistic rationale for elite control."
Nicely put.
Tom: "The EZ was created to function as a partner of the hegemon and maybe to replace it eventually in order to end the vassalage of the European nations that pissed the French off in particular."
Nicely put, although to clear up any confusion I'd make a distinction as to the reasons the US and various European states created the European institutions that they understood well in advance would turn into a federal United States of Europe. The two parties always had different aims, although they may have coincided on occasion and Europe may now be parting company with a US that gone totally bonkers.
Tom: "BTW, the French and Germans are keenly aware that a Franko-German-Russian alliance can rule the world, and so are the Russians."
Possible, but then your'e forgetting that a EZ break up may leave the major EU powers with serious problems that may be exploitable by Washington. You're also leaving out China, India, Japan, a reunited Korea in the not too distant future and a whole host of rising regional and economic mini-powers. The US has decided the rest of the world is an enemy that must be brought to heel. However, a federal EU (that has US federal style powers to help its members when in need) that makes peace with the rest of the world may yet replace the behemoth. More likely, the EZ either breaks up or staggers around mindlessly for years to come and the US finds itself at war on many fronts and bleeds to death, allowing China, India, Indonesia, etc to create a new multipolar world.
I'm talking more about agendas at the time of the creation of the EZ than now, although the same agendas are operative but modified in response to changed conditions. For example, the French did not see Germany emerging as the European hegemon at the time, and union was a ploy to obviate it.
The Europeanizers would have liked to have gone straight to a federation but that was not possible politically. The prospect that a liberalized Russia integrating with Europe was also lively then.
I am not saying that all the founders had this agenda in mind. There were many different agendas. But it was a factor if not the factor for some.
Certainly, the underlying aim of the elitists has always been the dissolution of nations. It is implied in the whole idea of one world order or international corporatism headed by the banks.
Brzezinski:
"The nation state as a fundamental unit of man's organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state."
Brzezinski, Zbigniew, Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era (New York: Viking Press, 1973), p. 246.
More Brzezinski:
"People, governments and economies of all nations must serve the needs of multinational banks and corporations."
“The technotronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities. ”
“In the technotronic society the trend would seem to be towards the aggregation of the individual support of millions of uncoordinated citizens, easily within the reach of magnetic and attractive personalities exploiting the latest communications techniques to manipulate emotions and control reason.”
“This regionalization is in keeping with the Tri-Lateral Plan which calls for a gradual convergence of East and West, ultimately leading toward the goal of one world government. National sovereignty is no longer a viable concept.”
---------------------
Martin van Crevald, the Israeli military historian, wrote a book on the subject:
"The Rise and Decline of the State."
And yes, it is most assuredly "sinister."
Takes what Carroll Quigley said about TPTB in the '30s up an order or two.
This was actually predicted by Marx as the apex of capitalism as a historical moment that would result in world revolution by "the little people" to take back control and usher in the succeeding moment of history. Of course, Marx was not able to envision the technocracy that emerged but he got the outline right as it has developed. The outcome is yet to be determined, of course, and there's likely still a way to go with the development of the currently running historical moment.
"...no one will be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the mark, either the name of the beast or the number of his name. Revelation 13:17
Neil Wilson:Don't mention the problems with unlimited immigration because "it isn't an issue". Don't talk about national governments enforcing anything because that is 'nationalism'.
One can be pro-nationalism, pro-sovereignty - I am. We usually agree. But I simply disagree that there are in actuality any non-imaginary problems with 'unlimited immigration' of the sort usually posited- especially to a country like the USA. False claims to that effect are simply another way to divide & conquer. Like opposition to genuine free trade, the economic arguments simply don't make economic sense. Of the type usually considered, there is no case for concerted action, nor is there any case for limiting population movements more than they were in the 19th century say. Run the whole world with each country following functional finance & not being uptight about new furrin neighbors - or even just do it in the USA - and there ain't no problems.
What is needed is respect & understanding of the UN Charter & the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. If that is one-world idealism, make the most of it. This kind of economic understanding of classical liberalism - true internationalism consistent with nationalism, an outgrowth of true nationalism, is not "sentimental internationalism" and is in FDR, Keynes & Lerner - and more power to such ideas. It has been losing many battles, but winning wars for centuries.
Atavisms like EZ Banksterocracy, TPP corporatocracy are just last-ditch efforts by elites who are the only ones who see that without them, they are on their way out; we do agree that such people may use a certain kind of "one world idealism" for their purposes. They defend the major destructiveness of the EZ by the minor, but real benefits of the EU. They also use foolishness about immigrants causing problems for the same purpose.
Cal, Neil has went over this many times. The correct way to get unlimited immigration in the world is to implement full employment policies and limit *open* immigration to countries also with full employment and equivalent infrastructure. The open borders area expands slowly until it reaches a tipping point.
Post a Comment